The Oil and Gas gubernatorial candidate is using his last few months in Congress to tie our hands as far as evaluating what his masters do.

They drill. Often on public lands. Sometimes potentially endangering our environment. But they produce needed energy and make money. Government should be fair and efficient in deciding on permits for specific activities.

Rep. Steve Pearce, R-N.M. would deny the government, in many situations, any chance to balance the commercial needs of drillers and the public interest.

The “Common Sense Permitting Act,” would dispense with common sense. Existing law requires review of operations under the National Environmental Protection Act. There are some “categorical exclusions” with no environmental-review requirement. Pearce would expand those exclusions to make the law almost meaningless, endangering our environment. He'd ban environmental review when an oil company wanted to modify or expand an oil pipeline, no matter how radically or what it now bordered. Worse, the bill excludes from environmental review new wells at wholly new well pad sites, so long as the area is not more than 20 acres.

Under HR 6107, operators would no longer need federal drilling permits if the subsurface mineral rights are less than 50 percent federally owned. Pearce's pals get a free pass, avoiding NEPA and the Endangered Species Act. I think that means that if I'm drilling a 400-acre area, and own 52 percent of the mineral rights, the feds get no chance to determine whether my plans endanger public lands or public water in that area. If I want the big bucks and don't care if I'm polluting water or poisoning wildlife, the feds have to stand by and watch whatever I do on the federal portion of the area. If the state approves, I'm home free — and New Mexico has no state EPA. Plus Pearce hopes to soon be running our state.

Yeah, there's a provision allowing the Secretary of the Interior to inspect to make sure I'm not violating federal law; but we know officials don't always do their jobs without the prodding of a legal requirement or a lawsuit. Particularly when, as under Pearce's pal Trump, hen-guarding agencies are staffed with wolves and foxes.

Meanwhile, this Republican administration has reduced BLM comment periods to meaninglessness. Republican Congressfolk would make us pay to file objections and let states manage federal lands.

Pearce knows that without the permitting process, federal agencies may lack adequate information to assess a site meaningfully; and that too often the laws only get enforced through lawsuits by environmentalists. He knows that these two bills, if made law, could endanger public lands and our scarce water, and possibly wildlife species.

He prefers to maximize his pals' profits, perhaps because they contribute generously to keeping him in public office.

Presumably we're not smart enough to see how the bills and his candidacy for governor dovetail: the bills would eliminate federal oversight and leave permitting to states, which currently lack jurisdiction over public lands. If Pearce heads the state government, he can make sure OUR state doesn't bother his pals much about endangering neighbor's wells or our environment.

Most of us prefer some public oversight.

The Republican-controlled Congress and this Republican president won't reject Pearce's bills, but Pearce has provided us another reason to reject Pearce.